guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#columbia-first-v-mayflower-electoral-commission-et-al
This is the start of #columbia-first-v-mayflower-electoral-commission-et-al channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:10 p.m.
New Case
Case Type
civil
Case Number
CV-375-25
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:12 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Hon’ble Judge Singhski.
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:12 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @bob78711new to the case channel.
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-08-04 04:13 p.m.
@bob78711new @singhski
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 04:14 p.m.
TY
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 04:18 p.m.
Cc @singhski
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 04:19 p.m.
Plaintiff requesting a TRO hearing at earliest availability
singhski
singhski 2025-08-04 04:33 p.m.
@Nicklaus Reassign, I'm on LOA
singhski
singhski 2025-08-04 04:43 p.m.
also I would have to recuse from this because I am an employee of the MEC
krm
krm 2025-08-04 04:53 p.m.
Where is the tro application@bob78711new
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:54 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Chancery, Lord Shah.
krmkrm used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 04:54 p.m.
Case Modified
@krm has added @bob78711new to the case channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 05:02 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Chancellor Cabot.
krmkrm used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 05:02 p.m.
Case Modified
@krm has added @bob78711new to the case channel.
krm
krm 2025-08-04 05:02 p.m.
@cabot
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:04 p.m.
Hello thank you
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:05 p.m.
@bob78711new TRO Application
cabotcabot
@bob78711new TRO Application
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.
Apologies just ate lunch
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.
I have never filed a TRO before so I did not know I needed an application
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.
give me 20 minutes to draft
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:06 p.m.
Is this chat gpt
cabotcabot
Is this chat gpt
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:07 p.m.
No
cabotcabot used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.
Case Modified
@cabot has added @actxrz to the case channel.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.
I intend on holding an ingame/vc hearing for the TRO in the next 30 mins
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.
PLEASE DO VC
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:13 p.m.
LMAO
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:25 p.m.
YEP
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:25 p.m.
VC AND INGAME
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:25 p.m.
:😄:
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:32 p.m.
Apologies if it is messy this is my first time doing a TRO, if there is a state standard I dont know about I am also sorry I just used the federal standard.

Courtesy Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kDZ0tghjLvBcws-2oh6b-BDtkj2je9pp/view?usp=sharing
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:33 p.m.
cc; @cabot @krm
cabotcabot
VC AND INGAME
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:34 p.m.
Also I'd like to call into question the status of @actxrz considering he is banned from the game
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:35 p.m.
my presence in game will be purely spiritual
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:35 p.m.
its the deep state... they dont want me to vote... Stay in Line .
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.
@cabot u ready my lord?
actxrzactxrz
its the deep state... they dont want me to vote... Stay in Line .
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.
if your banned does that not mean your CRed?
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.
i am banned from the game
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.
i am not banned from anything else
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:36 p.m.
:/
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
I am just not gonna care anymore
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
because I am not sado and cant focus on more than one major issue
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
at a time
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
oh ok
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
maybe thats a skill u should work on
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
multi-tasking
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
ok we will do just stage then
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
very very very very useful skill to have in life
cabotcabot
ok we will do just stage then
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:37 p.m.
kk
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
here? or in clark server(edited)
actxrzactxrz
multi-tasking
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
well if I did not have a load of work
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
of other stuff
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
would be easier
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
load of work..
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
i think clark server has stage set up
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
who is u lying to rn twin
actxrzactxrz
who is u lying to rn twin
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:38 p.m.
I'm drafting a buisness law cariculum for MSU and I have my representation of dept's
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
piled with real life
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
u shove all ur cases to ur colleagues
actxrzactxrz
u shove all ur cases to ur colleagues
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
When it goes to court yes
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
otherwise I handle stuff
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
ive been focusing on policy
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
but this is not a chat!
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
lets stay on topic
bob78711newbob78711new
I'm drafting a buisness law cariculum for MSU and I have my representation of dept's
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
@acerxtro what u doing mh
actxrzactxrz
@acerxtro what u doing mh
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:39 p.m.
he is dead
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:40 p.m.
I am the only one hosting
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:40 p.m.
sometimes dave
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.
@cabot when are we doing this?
bob78711newbob78711new
@cabot when are we doing this?
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.
7 mins
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.
main server
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.
wilco
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:53 p.m.
In game?
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:58 p.m.
vc is fine
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:58 p.m.
main discord server
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 05:58 p.m.
@bob78711new
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:59 p.m.
K
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 05:59 p.m.
I am awaiting the stage
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 06:00 p.m.
@cabot can u gimme a few mins
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 06:00 p.m.
sure
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 06:00 p.m.
we'll push back until 5-10 past
cabotcabot
we'll push back until 5-10 past
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:02 p.m.
lets get the stage up atleast
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 06:03 p.m.
yeah ive asked ca niw
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:05 p.m.
a mod can also do it too
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:08 p.m.
@bob78711new @actxrz
krabzatonin ᴏᴍkrabzatonin ᴏᴍ
@bob78711new @actxrz
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:09 p.m.
Joined
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:09 p.m.
invite me up please
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:10 p.m.
5064-4d55 is server id
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.
ur funny. server id
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.
im BANNED
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.
where u at boy @actxrz
krabzatonin ᴏᴍkrabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.
Theres a stage VC smart one
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.
bob better be speaking
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.
i joined
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 06:11 p.m.
Confirm @bob78711new
cabotcabot
Confirm @bob78711new
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:12 p.m.
I can speak yes
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 06:13 p.m.
can you hear me
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:14 p.m.
yes its gonna be live stream by MSPAN :😁:
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:14 p.m.
@bob78711new
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-08-04 06:15 p.m.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:30 p.m.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-04 06:56 p.m.
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-04 11:14 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 01:58 a.m.
Forgot to ask can we get my co counsel added @ian is my co counsel, he will file his NOA soon
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 01:58 a.m.
Cc: @Nicklaus @Xerxy
XerxyXerxy used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 04:14 a.m.
Case Modified
@Xerxy has added @ian to the case channel.
cabotcabot used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 05:12 a.m.
Case Modified
@cabot has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:12 a.m.
Hey
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:12 a.m.
@meowiitten
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 a.m.
Hi I'm bob's co counsel
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 a.m.
I will file a noa soon as I can
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 01:57 p.m.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
@cabot @ian @bob78711new
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 02:11 p.m.
Tysm
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:15 p.m.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
@cabot @ian @bob78711new
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:17 p.m.
@cabot Plaintiff requests that our response to these two be due 2 days after the PI hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:22 p.m.
@cabot Since the PI concerns a TRO on now moot and resolved issues the PI hearing is unnecessary
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:23 p.m.
The issue of their registration is due for further litigation and was not the subject of the TRO
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:24 p.m.
@meowiitten have you disclosed the fact that you were inquiring about representing the plaintiff to the department of justice before representing the government as required by bar rule 1.7 C?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:24 p.m.
DOJ waived the conflict of interest please calm down g
meowiittenmeowiitten
DOJ waived the conflict of interest please calm down g
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:25 p.m.
We'd like to see some proof of that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:25 p.m.
Also there is no conflict the CF approached me and I declined
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:25 p.m.
I have no interest in this case
meowiittenmeowiitten
Also there is no conflict the CF approached me and I declined
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:26 p.m.
no you stipulated that they need to drop me if you want them to work, case details were infact shared, and section C states: "Even when a significant risk requiring an attorney to comply with paragraph (b)"
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:26 p.m.
your still required to disclose
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:26 p.m.
Now I would like to see proof of this disclosure
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.
sorry cut it off
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.
"is not present," is the rest after be
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.
b*
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.
What’s my interest in this case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:27 p.m.
Representing the DOJ?
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:28 p.m.
You were given facts about the plaintiff and showed interest in representing the plaintiff, I would like to know if you disclosed that information as required by the bar ethic rules
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
If you wanna go this route I can just move to strike you as counsel as lawyer-as-witness
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
Again I have no interest :/
meowiittenmeowiitten
If you wanna go this route I can just move to strike you as counsel as lawyer-as-witness
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
I'm not a witness
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
I am just affected
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
You will be
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
We intend to call you at trial
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
Still pro se
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:29 p.m.
Have you disclosed it?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.
Then you misrepresented yourself at the TRO hearing
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.
How?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.
You also filed on behalf of every other Plaintiff…? As a pro se litigant?(edited)
meowiittenmeowiitten
You also filed on behalf of every other Plaintiff…? As a pro se litigant?(edited)
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.
Pro se for myself
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:30 p.m.
their attorney
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.
Please stop dodgeing the question
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.
have you
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.
disclosed it
bob78711newbob78711new
their attorney
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:31 p.m.
That’s not even possible?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:32 p.m.
Well I’ll get the motion to strike out
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:32 p.m.
Have you disclosed it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.
1. You claim to be pro se
2. You filed a Complaint on behalf of all Plaintiffs anyways
3. You are a witness, and therefore violating the “lawyer-as-witness” rule
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.
There’s a few things that can happen
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.
I am not a witness
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.
Well, I mean, I already said we intend to call you
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.
everything I know is 2nd hand
meowiittenmeowiitten
Well, I mean, I already said we intend to call you
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 03:34 p.m.
Well I am not listing myself as a witness now so
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:44 p.m.
@cabot While I do preserve our right to file a motion to disqualify, I'd like you to ask bob if he is pro se or attorney for the Plaintiffs. He filed the Complaint not only in the name of himself, but also on behalf of all the other Plaintiffs. So I'm a little confused to what is going on here(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:44 p.m.
To my understanding someone can't be pro se and then also represent other Plaintiffs... even if they're Bar certified... that's just now how that works
meowiittenmeowiitten
To my understanding someone can't be pro se and then also represent other Plaintiffs... even if they're Bar certified... that's just now how that works
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:46 p.m.
You don't think he can represent the rest of the plaintiffs in a case in which he is a plaintiff?
ianian
You don't think he can represent the rest of the plaintiffs in a case in which he is a plaintiff?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:47 p.m.
I'm just confused
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:47 p.m.
He said he's pro se but he is also representing everyone else, and we intend to call him as a witness. So........
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.
Can you cite an authority for his disqualification
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.
I will but I'm waiting for Cabot to get him to answer the question
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.
To my knowledge we allow a plaintiff to represent his co-plaintiffs
meowiittenmeowiitten
I will but I'm waiting for Cabot to get him to answer the question
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:48 p.m.
What question
meowiittenmeowiitten
@cabot While I do preserve our right to file a motion to disqualify, I'd like you to ask bob if he is pro se or attorney for the Plaintiffs. He filed the Complaint ...(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:49 p.m.
.
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:49 p.m.
He is representing himself and his co-plaintiffs
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:49 p.m.
Why would that not be allowed
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:50 p.m.
Co-plaintiffs are duly informed and consent
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:50 p.m.
It's much more efficient this way
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:50 p.m.
It's done irl
ianian
Co-plaintiffs are duly informed and consent
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:51 p.m.
It's not so much as that they consent
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:52 p.m.
If he's proceeding pro se he can only represent his own interest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:52 p.m.
And then there's the secondary issue that he is a lawyer-as-witness
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:54 p.m.
Would you be okay with it if he represented himself only, and I the rest of the parties
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.
"Although Stoner is a licensed attorney, and has been admitted to practice before this court, ... Stoner's authority to prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States in propria persona and held that Stoner could not proceed pro se...." Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1117–1118 (9th Cir. 2007)
ianian
Would you be okay with it if he represented himself only, and I the rest of the parties
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.
You will need to refile the complaint because he filed on behalf of all parties
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.
That'd be really needlessly hefty on the judicial economy(edited)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.
We can just state it for the record
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:55 p.m.
Judicial economy is hardly a concern
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.
I've never seen a real life opinion that actually cites the judicial economy lol
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.
We do
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.
We often talk about it here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.
It's not a magic shield
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:56 p.m.
It's a metaphor for saying that there's no need in doing all that when the same exact result can be accomplished by something simpler
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:57 p.m.
I can just state it for the record
ian
ian 2025-08-05 03:57 p.m.
@cabot if you would allow me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.
You can't cure a Complaint retroactively that was invalid at it's inception
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.
The only thing that can be done without refiling is Bob removes every other Plaintiff
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.
And just litigates this for himself
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.
But then we need to vacate the TRO
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 03:58 p.m.
And look at harm done
meowiittenmeowiitten
You can't cure a Complaint retroactively that was invalid at it's inception
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:02 p.m.
Kind of can though
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
You can just imagine I signed it instead of bob
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
Same thing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
Let's not get metaphysical
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
Please
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
The issue is he submitted and signed it no?
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
When he cant rep CF and the co plaintiffs
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
He submitted, signed, filed, sealed, drafted, advised, argued the TRO on behalf of all other plaintiffs, and consented...(edited)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:03 p.m.
So just imagine he didn't, judicial economy is preserved, everybody is happy
meowiittenmeowiitten
He submitted, signed, filed, sealed, drafted, advised, argued the TRO on behalf of all other plaintiffs, and consented...(edited)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.
:❓:
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.
Okay
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.
He wrote it with me
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.
What is the issue
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:04 p.m.
@cabot In my mind there is no need for further complication
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:05 p.m.
I will proceed as counsel given sado's concerns
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:05 p.m.
The complaint should continue to be accepted under my name
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:08 p.m.
@ian is first chair
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:08 p.m.
He has been away from his computer for a while
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:08 p.m.
So I was handling emergency proceedings
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:09 p.m.
The issue wasnt raised before so it shouldn't be redressed retroactively
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:09 p.m.
Okay but like you represented every other plaintiff. I don't know what to tell you. This issue just appeared to me and we haven't filed an answer yet
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:09 p.m.
It's just time to bear the consequences of that decision
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:10 p.m.
You attended the TRO hearing and didn't move for anything(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:10 p.m.
Don't be ridiculous alright
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:10 p.m.
Not worth making yourself out to be a fool over this
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:11 p.m.
??
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:11 p.m.
Let the other guy do that
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:12 p.m.
I don't think apparent foolishness is as linear as you make it out to be
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:12 p.m.
I've been competent in all of my cases in my opinion but some people will still tell you I'm a bad attorney
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:12 p.m.
Some will tell you I'm wonderful
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:13 p.m.
What matters here is that you're only raising the issue now, and it's being corrected now, so there should be no "consequences"(edited)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:13 p.m.
Additionally what I've offered is entirely sufficient for redressing the mistake
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:14 p.m.
Onto the next matter, what is the utility behind a PI hearing? I think that the TRO only concerned candidacy and they're already on the ballot (the voting is happening right now). So what is there to argue? I think we can just proceed to the business license issue
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:14 p.m.
So are you okay with letting me just be counsel of record from now
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:14 p.m.
With no other fixes
meowiittenmeowiitten
Onto the next matter, what is the utility behind a PI hearing? I think that the TRO only concerned candidacy and they're already on the ballot (the voting is happening right now). ...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:15 p.m.
I didn't say that but I did ask this
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:15 p.m.
You're just changing the topic somewhat conveniently though which is why I'm asking before we move on
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:16 p.m.
My answer to what you said will be in a motion
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:16 p.m.
Just please answer the question
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:16 p.m.
Alright
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.
The TRO asks for the business license to be reinstated
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.
So you want a second TRO?
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.
No
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:17 p.m.
The first TRO did everything short of unsuspending the license
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.
It wasn't as urgent as the ballot access, so it wasn't granted during the TRO, but since this is a PI hearing with more notice, we need the license unsuspenddd
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.
So the PI is limited to the scope of the first TRO and determining if it should be extended
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.
Do you have an authority that we can't make the PI slightly broader
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.
The immediate issue during the TRO hearing was that the candidates didn't have ballot access
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.
That's been fixed
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:18 p.m.
It's no longer immediate, no emergency
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:19 p.m.
So we can more efficiently argue and look at the remaining issues
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:19 p.m.
It's still irreparable harm that you withdrew our license, we have a right to due process
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:19 p.m.
Well the issue with a PI here is that it essentially would attempt to resolve the case before it's even over
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.
If you want due process you would be better suited toward a summary judgment
ianian
The immediate issue during the TRO hearing was that the candidates didn't have ballot access
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.
There were literally 48 hours then to get ballot access back or lose the election forever
meowiittenmeowiitten
Well the issue with a PI here is that it essentially would attempt to resolve the case before it's even over
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.
I mean an injunction is an injunction
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:20 p.m.
If we are entitled we are entitled
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:21 p.m.
If you don't like injunctions you can argue it in the supreme court of the united states because no other court can get rid of the concept of injunctions since SCOTUS has continuously upheld them
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:21 p.m.
We want due process, there is irreparable harm, and what we are, therefore, suited for is an injunction
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:21 p.m.
Not what I said
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:22 p.m.
Courts are generally obligated not to give full effect to relief before a case is fully decided on the merits
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:22 p.m.
Which is why I suggest summary judgment
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:22 p.m.
It's not full effect
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.
It's temporary relief to avoid irreparable harm
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.
That's what PIs are for
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.
The test for PIs is identical to the test for TROs
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:23 p.m.
Giving you due process that you were not entitled to would resolve the case lol
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:25 p.m.
No
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:25 p.m.
It would make it so that we aren't subjected to irreparable harm UNTIL the case is resolved
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:25 p.m.
The balance of equities is in our favor
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.
I explained this to DOJ but you aren't in the ticket I believe
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.
Or something like it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.
No reason to keep making stuff up alright
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:26 p.m.
Anyways
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:27 p.m.
I'm not making up anything
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:27 p.m.
We satisfy Winter in this case
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:27 p.m.
So an injunction is proper besides the full SJ and adjudication and whatnot
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:28 p.m.
Specifically I explained how the balance of equities applies (I think) in the DOJ ticket, I'll add you
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 04:28 p.m.
sado also failed to disclose his prior dealing with the DOJ
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:29 p.m.
That's a separate issue
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:45 p.m.
@cabot @meowiitten I formally move for sanctions against the government
ianian
@cabot @meowiitten I formally move for sanctions against the government
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:46 p.m.
For
meowiittenmeowiitten
For
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:46 p.m.
For email bombing me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:46 p.m.
Ah
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.
LOL
meowiittenmeowiitten
LOL
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.
its not funny
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.
It wouldve been funny if it were Grindr notifications
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.
Its just random ass services idgaf about
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:47 p.m.
So its not quite in the realm of funny
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:48 p.m.
@cabot unionware knows but sanctions are appropriate because I was communicating about the case to orange right prior
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:48 p.m.
I sent him a litigation hold letter
ian
ian 2025-08-05 04:48 p.m.
Please hold him in contempt
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:49 p.m.
Sorry what
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:49 p.m.
I will reply once I get a TLDR here
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:49 p.m.
Talking to each other is never useful
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:50 p.m.
Both sides post a TLDR
cabotcabot
Both sides post a TLDR
ian
ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.
I will your honor
ian
ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.
Can we please first address the email bombing situation
cabotcabot
Sorry what
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.
I'll relink my motions
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.
With a schedule
ian
ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.
The government has retaliated against me for suing then
ian
ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.
Them
ian
ian 2025-08-05 05:52 p.m.
By doing something that is illegal in real life @cabot
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.
Then report it to the real life authorities
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.
I’m just an online judge
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.
Plus you have no direct evidence, it’s barely circumstantial
cabotcabot
Plus you have no direct evidence, it’s barely circumstantial
ian
ian 2025-08-05 05:56 p.m.
It happened like 5 minutes after
ian
ian 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.
Irl thats enough to convict somebody
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL OF RECORD
@cabot @ian
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.
Uh no that’s enough once datalogs are retrieved
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.
To correlate to those facts
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.
Ty
meowiittenmeowiitten
DEFENDANTS' MOTION SCHEDULE 1. [Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hffz8h-M5d3lXiQ3MqxCCWavnJx7zT-p/view?usp=sharing) 2. [Government's ...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:57 p.m.
Pin this as well
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:58 p.m.
Also 3 should be resolved before the PI hearing
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 05:58 p.m.
What’s the difference between 1 and 3
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:58 p.m.
1 is your typical MTD
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:59 p.m.
3 is asking to dismiss the complaint because it was filed improperly by a pro se plaintiff who represents himself as the attorney of each and every other plaintiff, or disqualify him as counsel
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 05:59 p.m.
Just have to read it. It's 3 pages @cabot
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:06 p.m.
@cabot Mr Bob already withdrew as counsel
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:06 p.m.
I am the counsel
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:06 p.m.
3 is moot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:07 p.m.
If you read the motion, you would understand it is not moot
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:10 p.m.
Okay sure he’s disqualified
cabotcabot
Okay sure he’s disqualified
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:10 p.m.
There’s another half to consider
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:10 p.m.
The entire first half
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.
I notably turn to Jones ex rel. Jones
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.
And Stoner v. Santa Clara County
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.
Oh I see, interesting
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.
I notably turn to how that would just be inadequate for purposes of preserving the judicial economy
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.
Anyone got the link to the case or do I need to westlaw it
cabotcabot
Anyone got the link to the case or do I need to westlaw it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:11 p.m.
I have it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:12 p.m.
One second
cabotcabot
Anyone got the link to the case or do I need to westlaw it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:15 p.m.
Jones ex rel. Jones: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3096932782182644455&q=jones+ex+rel+jones&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 (affirming dismissal of a complaint filed pro se on behalf of others and rejecting attempted cure through later amendment or counsel substitution because the complaint was a "nullity" from the beginning)

Stoner v. Santa Clara County: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_casecase=17442823136747737903&q=Stoner+v.+Santa+Clara+County&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 (dismissing even a licensed attorney’s pro se qui tam action because he “ha[d] no authority to prosecute an action... on behalf of others than himself”).
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.
It's unfortunate that we proceed this far under these circumstances but
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.
These things happen all the time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.
An incompetent attorney filed a deficient complaint
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.
Who tried to be pro se
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:16 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.
Thanks
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.
Your honor would you like me to reintroduce the complaint under my name
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.
You can dismiss, I reintroduce
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:17 p.m.
It's that easy here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
Yes if it's dismissed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
Dismissed without prejudice
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
I disagree that our rules mirror federal rules
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
The TRO needs to be vacated then
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
And why can't the court just generously utilise it's equity powers
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
And I think you have yet to prove that
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
to cure this
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
i think anyone can see what he was trying to do here
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:18 p.m.
admittedly sloppy but not exactly unascertainable
cabotcabot
And why can't the court just generously utilise it's equity powers
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.
Because any amendment would essentially bend the complaint beyond recognition. He was trying to litigate other people's harms in a pro se capacity. And the complaint stands to this day.
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.
The court does have inherent authority to manage its docket and like I said your honor it is in the interest of the judicial economy to exercise it
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.
The cases sado cited apply federally
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.
We have no rules regarding that to my knowledge
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.
It's the same in principle?
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:19 p.m.
He has not cited any
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:20 p.m.
So it's a weak argument that asks for a procedural "safeguard" that is not actually a safeguard but rather completely unnecessary
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:20 p.m.
It'd result in the dismissal and reintroduction of the complaint, this time signed by me and not bob
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:20 p.m.
If people are simply allowed to amend, it would defeat the purpose of a motion to dismiss and the federal precedent surrounding them. I've been over this with Judge acerxtro, and he agreed in the end(edited)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
Right but
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
This isnt any motion to dismiss
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
You have literally no issue with the complaint at all except for who signed it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
Wrong
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
I can just sign it and send it here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
First motion to dismiss
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
The entire first motion
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
Right
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
I know that
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
That's not what's being discussed
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:21 p.m.
I will address that separately but here we are talking about the third motion
ianian
You have literally no issue with the complaint at all except for who signed it
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.
@cabot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.
You have not cited any precedent to your position besides "it's federal so we should ignore it"
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.
You're the movant?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.
You mention judicial economy but that is only a concern for administrative matters
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:22 p.m.
This is not administrative as it goes to the complaint itself
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.
There are many instances where someone's criminal case can be dismissed multiple times, multiple mistrials, and they are still made to refile over and over
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.
If the third motion is accepted, the FACT IS, all that will happen is 1. Dismissal w/o prej; 2. Reintroduction of the same complaint, now signed by me; 3. Compl. accepted; 4. TRO re-introduced
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.
Literally nothing will happen
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.
It's useless
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.
THat's good
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.
That's what I want
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:23 p.m.
Filing a complaint pro se on behalf of others = a legal nullity. That's all
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.
Ok well I think it's not necessary and given the case and how fragile it is the court shouldn't be so quick to dismiss
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.
Just let me introduce the amended version with only a changed signature
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.
Then you are bending the case beyond recognition
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.
This is a pro se lawsuit
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.
Bob has withdrawn his representation of himself and others
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:24 p.m.
I have NOAd
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
Can we allow the judge to rule
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
@cabot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
Then this case needs to be dismissed if the Plaintiff abandoned his claims by withdrawal?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
Want of prosecution
meowiittenmeowiitten
Then this case needs to be dismissed if the Plaintiff abandoned his claims by withdrawal?
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
Is that what I said
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
I said he withdrew his representation of himself
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
He obtained counsel
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
E.g., me
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:25 p.m.
@cabot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
You can't amend a complaint that was legally deficient from the start. It's just not how it works. It's never been that way. If I filed this case in federal court the magistrate would just dismiss it near-automatically. Maybe it is in Mayflower (???) but nowhere else.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP TALKING TO EACHOTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cabotcabot
Okay sure he’s disqualified
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
Can we disqualify sado
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
he broke the bar ethics rules by failing to disclose his relationship with us to the DOJ
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
Hm?
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
I can write a paper motion
cabotcabot
Hm?
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
he
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
was going to work for us at first
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
but we decided not to hire him
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:27 p.m.
Uh what the helly
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
under the bar rules
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
He also didn't get consent from bob
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
Did you divulge information to him about the case
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
he is required to disclose that to the DOJ
cabotcabot
Did you divulge information to him about the case
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
yes
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
we discussed strategy briefly
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
uh sado..
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
Yes and he hasn't asked us consent
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
I have 2 witnissess to support this as well
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
Additionally he didnt inform the DOJ
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
and he has not informed the DOJ
cabotcabot
Did you divulge information to him about the case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
Actually what happened was they added me to a voice call group chat, without me even prompting that, and asked me to represent them. I expressly declined and DOJ waived any and all COI
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
They literally reached out to me and added me to a voice call
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
We didnt waive anything
meowiittenmeowiitten
Actually what happened was they added me to a voice call group chat, without me even prompting that, and asked me to represent them. I expressly declined and DOJ waived any and all...
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
no
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:28 p.m.
They told you what happened
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
you said
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
you would not work the case unless they droped me from the ticket
😭1
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
and continued to argue to 30 minutes
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
we talked before that
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
before you made your position
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
clear
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
Whether you agreed to be told or not, you were told privileged information, and you did not get consent from bob or CF to now try this case from the other side @meowiitten @cabot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
😭1
meowiittenmeowiitten
Click to see attachment.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
I have 2 witnissess who can back up what I am saying
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
Affidavits everyone :😄:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:29 p.m.
😭1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
Thank you
cabotcabot
Affidavits everyone :😄:
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
:👍:
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
Just felt like it
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
Honestly
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
Dude this is like Trump adding Jack Smith to a text groupchat
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
Asking him to be his lawyer
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
And then the next Trump being like
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
Filing a motion to disqualify
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:30 p.m.
And being like
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.
HE TRIED TO REPRESENT US
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.
We will have affidavits
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.
Dude you people added me to a groupchat without me even prompting it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.
Lmfaoooo
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.
Also the government should have many attorneys
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.
They are the government
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:31 p.m.
So long as we present the affidavit (unless sado can prove somebody perjured themselves) he should be disqualified
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.
Just know as soon as you file these utterly false affidavits without any evidence I am going to file a motion for sanctions
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.
An affidavit is evidence
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.
And you can't move for sanctions if you can't prove an affidavit is false
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:32 p.m.
But we've made no indication that we're going to perjure anybody, and that's because we won't
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:33 p.m.
1. The DOJ waived any conflict of interest,
2. I never agreed to represent the plaintiffs,
3. I was added involuntarily to a chat, and
4. Any affidavits suggesting otherwise would be false and sanctionable.
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:34 p.m.
1. Ok, that's not all that's required
2. Doesn't matter at all if they told you privileged information
3. Okay, again it doesn't matter at all if they told you privileged information
4. So long as you can prove it, sure
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:35 p.m.
I want to make it clear here I am not saying "you're right but can't prove it"
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:35 p.m.
I am simply emphasizing my clients' rights to be presumed innocent of the crimes of contempt and perjury, like any other crime
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.
Please make the affidavits
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.
I will
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.
I am begging you to make the affidavits so I can type this motion with haste
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.
Im not on pc
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:36 p.m.
But I will
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:37 p.m.
I never could have even had a duty to you people
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:37 p.m.
As I said, you added me to a groupchat against my will
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:40 p.m.
@cabot Anyways please let me know on that motion
meowiittenmeowiitten
As I said, you added me to a groupchat against my will
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:41 p.m.
Seeking legal advice
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:41 p.m.
You solicited it from me and I gave you none
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:41 p.m.
Don't be ridiculous
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:42 p.m.
Even someone opening a ticket in my firm doesn't establish attorney-client relationship(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:42 p.m.
I don't even know why you are going down this path quite frankly
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:42 p.m.
You're just letting this one person drag you further down after what you did in a seperate action
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:43 p.m.
Saving your integrity I will not mention it
meowiittenmeowiitten
Even someone opening a ticket in my firm doesn't establish attorney-client relationship(edited)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:43 p.m.
...
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.
(a) A person who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults an attorney for the purpose of retaining the attorney or securing legal service or advice from the attorney in the attorney’s professional capacity, is a prospective client.
(b) Even when no attorney-client relationship ensues, an attorney who has communicated with a prospective client shall not use or reveal protected information that the attorney learned as a result of the consultation, except as rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.
(edited)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.
Rule 1.15 of the Mayflower Rules of Professional Conduct or Ethics Rules or ethics code or whatever
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.
It's also 1.18 of the model rules of professional conduct
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:44 p.m.
@cabot is this punk for real
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
Do you realize how ridiculous this is? I can basically add prosecutors to a groupchat for this matter, tell them what I did, and get them all disqualified, permanently, because they somehow have confidential information of what I did
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d). If an attorney is prohibited from representation under this paragraph, no attorney in a firm with which that attorney is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
Because I "expected" they would represent me, solely because they're lawyers
meowiittenmeowiitten
Do you realize how ridiculous this is? I can basically add prosecutors to a groupchat for this matter, tell them what I did, and get them all disqualified, permanently, because the...
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
Prosecutors arent already part of the case
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
I mean
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
Prosecutors
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
ARE already part of the case
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
You werent
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
You took it on afterwards
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:45 p.m.
An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d). If an attorney is prohibited from representation under this paragraph, no attorney in a firm with which that attorney is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.
that's (c)
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.
Bro you got privileged info, switched sides and used it against us
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.
Get out of here
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:46 p.m.
I should report you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 06:47 p.m.
Needlessly ruining yourself
cabotcabot used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 06:48 p.m.
Case Modified
@cabot has added @Deverus to the case channel.
meowiittenmeowiitten
Needlessly ruining yourself
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:49 p.m.
?
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:49 p.m.
@cabot is there an ex parte disclosure you have ready for us? Or why has deverus just been added so out of the blue
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.
good evening your honour, esteemed litigants.

just to put this on the record, the Attorney General did, pursuant to mr.sado's appointment as special deputy solicitor general or whatever title he has for this case, did waive any conflict of interest that mr.sado may have so that he could represent the state's interests on behalf of the government.
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.
ianian
@cabot is there an ex parte disclosure you have ready for us? Or why has deverus just been added so out of the blue
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.
i asked.
ianian
@cabot is there an ex parte disclosure you have ready for us? Or why has deverus just been added so out of the blue
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:50 p.m.
Okay
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.
If you make any sort of baseless assertion like that against me again I'm imprisoning you for one hour and giving you a $500,000 fine
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.
Do you understand?
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.
You do it continuously in my court and I give latitude because frankly it is so de minimis and unimpactful that I don't care
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.
But you're going to get on my nerves very quickly if you ever make that assertion again in my courtroom
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:51 p.m.
Understand?
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:52 p.m.
I saw he was added and I assumed he DMed you, and I asked if he did
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:52 p.m.
I don't see the problem, it wasn't a baseless assertion, it was a well-founded question
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:52 p.m.
No you made a baseless accusation which quite literally is available in the filing centre for all attorneys to view
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.
I made a well-founded question based on what I saw
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.
And to me the filing center isn't a channel I check constantly
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.
Even then all deverus sent in there was linking the channel
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:53 p.m.
I'd expect you to check it before you acuse me of misconduct
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
Who wouldn't conclude that perhaps he DMed you
cabotcabot
I'd expect you to check it before you acuse me of misconduct
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
I did not
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
Misconduct would be if you failed to provide it
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
It had been 5 seconds
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
Since you added him
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
I find you in direct criminal contempt, I will be imprisoning you for 1 hour and you will pay a $500,000 to a member of the prothonary's office and I am disqualifying you as counsel
ian
ian 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
I didn't accuse anybody of anything, I made a well-founded question your honor
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
Good day
cabotcabot used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
Case Modified
@cabot has removed @ian from the case channel.
cabotcabot
I find you in direct criminal contempt, I will be imprisoning you for 1 hour and you will pay a $500,000 to a member of the prothonary's office and I am disqualifying you as counse...
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:54 p.m.
Written order will follow tomorrow
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:55 p.m.
@bob78711new Find a new attorney that doesn't misconduct their professional duties and obligations
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:55 p.m.
24 hours
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:56 p.m.
@cabot I ask you reconsider on dismissing him, this is a very emotional case, blood runs hot. I ask you just give him some time to cool down
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-05 06:56 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @Deverus to the case channel.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 06:57 p.m.
Sorry he needs to learn the hard way that those assertions are out of line
cabotcabot
Sorry he needs to learn the hard way that those assertions are out of line
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:59 p.m.
Well your honor, in all fairness there has yet to be any proof that the counselor disclosed his relationship to the DOJ Prior to him being hired. (considering the TRO hearing) additionally it was demonstrated during the TRO hearing that their is serious concern for government misconduct
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 06:59 p.m.
I dont belive it is out of line to call into question the governments conduct on this when it has already been brought up once
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 07:00 p.m.
This isn't about sado he made an accusation I engaged in ex parte communications with some lawyer I have never even come across in my life with no basis whatsoever
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 07:00 p.m.
He didn't question government conduct he specifically questioned my integrity, impartiality and my conduct in that statement with no basis whatsoever
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 07:01 p.m.
If he fails to conduct appropriate due diligence before accusing judges of misconduct or misbehaviour then he must pay the appropriate price
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 07:01 p.m.
He has 24 hours to pay the fine to the office of the prothonary, after which time he will be remanded into the custody of the Attorney General for 1 hour
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:02 p.m.
Oh my, I agree this conduct is not the best, I ask you allow me to lead these proceedings as first chair and allow him to continue in a more limited capacity as 2nd Chair
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:02 p.m.
At this time it is very hard to find competent lawyers
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:02 p.m.
the Chief Judge just had a press conference about that
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 07:03 p.m.
@meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:03 p.m.
What do we do now
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:03 p.m.
npz is disqualified, bob is disqualified
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
I myself did not even get a chance to respond to the disqualifications
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
of myself
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
Well yours was bound to happen
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
This isn't even a personal attack
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
It's just automatic
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
can I see the rule that states
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
that I cant pro se and represent the others?
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 07:04 p.m.
I will give you 24 hours to find new counsel, let me know if you enjoy the fruits of your search
cabotcabot
I will give you 24 hours to find new counsel, let me know if you enjoy the fruits of your search
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:05 p.m.
your honor I verbal motion to reconsider my disqualification
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:05 p.m.
I did not even get a chance to respond to it
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:18 p.m.
Your honor, defense is trying to disqualify me under 3.7, first of all I have not represented the party's during trial, all appearances have been pretrial appearances as 3.7 (a) state, additionally I have their informed consent satisfying 3.7 (a)1

Defence cites Iannaccone and Stoner to argue that pro se representation cannot extend to others. But these cases have no bearing on licensed attorneys representing parties with standing in litigation. I am not a layperson attempting to appear on behalf of third parties.

There is no jurisdictional defect here.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:18 p.m.
--

Relating to the disqualification of defence counsel
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:19 p.m.
I submit these two affidavits in support of the verbal motion
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:19 p.m.
and some photos forthcoming
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:21 p.m.
this photo shows that the defense counsel knew he was being approached about representation
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:21 p.m.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:22 p.m.
Cc: @cabot
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:23 p.m.
He can not claim that he was added against his will when he showed active intrest in taking the case as seen by photo 2
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 07:24 p.m.
that's hardly what would qualify as an "active interest"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:24 p.m.
I’m not even in the election
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:25 p.m.
Also as a matter of fact, there’s a presumption against disqualifying defense counsel
meowiittenmeowiitten
I’m not even in the election
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:25 p.m.
you were
DeverusDeverus
that's hardly what would qualify as an "active interest"
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.
he was saying that he would take it
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.
and that was his payment
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.
that meets the requirements for a prospective client
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.
No one even told me any information about the case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.
So what is it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:26 p.m.
Either I divulged confidential information or I didn’t
meowiittenmeowiitten
No one even told me any information about the case
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:27 p.m.
I have 2 affidavits supporting me that I told you confidential information before you said your payment in VC
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:27 p.m.
Which are false
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 07:27 p.m.
“help” does not qualify as him agreeing to represent the plaintiff in the matter. help could be any number of things which aren’t direct representation from legal advice to ghostwriting.

even so, him stating what it would take to “help” does not qualify as any sort of contract which would establish an attorney client relationship
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
The standard for disqualifying defense counsel is designed to protect the interests of my principal (the DOJ)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
Not you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
They waived any and all conflicts
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
and we have still yet to recive an answer weather you disclosed this relationship to the DOJ
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
you have gotten that answer, actually
meowiittenmeowiitten
They waived any and all conflicts
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
1 there is no proof of this I have seen
DeverusDeverus
you have gotten that answer, actually
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
where?
DeverusDeverus
good evening your honour, esteemed litigants. just to put this on the record, the Attorney General did, pursuant to mr.sado's appointment as special deputy solicitor general or wh...
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
i stated it on the record
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
2 you still violated 1.7 by not clearing it with us
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:28 p.m.
Also for this matter, @Deverus should be disqualified because I had his boss found in contempt a long time ago
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.
This is how a tight knit community works man
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.
I don’t know what to tell you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.
This is Roblox
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 07:29 p.m.
lmao
meowiittenmeowiitten
Also for this matter, @Deverus should be disqualified because I had his boss found in contempt a long time ago
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:30 p.m.
your using arbitrary analogys that dont line up with the bars rules
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:31 p.m.
Don’t know what to tell you man(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:31 p.m.
The disqualification standard for defense counsel is different from that of a plaintiff’s counsel(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:31 p.m.
Way different
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:32 p.m.
And it just so happens that the DOJ understands this. So they waived any and all COI
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:32 p.m.
Now if I went all the way with you, then switched sides, that would be different
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:32 p.m.
But there was no client relationship with CF
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.
Rule 1.15 Duties to Prospective Client

(a) "A person who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults an attorney for the purpose of retaining the attorney or securing legal service or advice from the attorney in the attorney’s professional capacity, is a prospective client." - Prospective Client Defined

(b) "Even when no attorney-client relationship ensues, an attorney who has communicated with a prospective client shall not use or reveal protected information that the attorney learned as a result of the consultation, except as rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client." - He has information

(c) "An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d). If an attorney is prohibited from representation under this paragraph, no attorney in a firm with which that attorney is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d)." - It is the same exact case

(d) "When the attorney has received information that prohibits representation as provided in paragraph (c), representation of the affected client is permissible if:"


(1) "both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, or"
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.
We did not give informed consent
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.
you are in violation of bar ethics rule 1.15
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.
You are free to report me to the bar
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:34 p.m.
I encourage it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:35 p.m.
They will just find what I said controls
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:35 p.m.
@Deverus I appeal to your better judgement so this does not need to get messy, by the very definition of rule 1.15 he is in violation
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:35 p.m.
its textbook
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:39 p.m.
My “client” is technically the DOJ, not you or anyone on your side
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:40 p.m.
Like I said, you have no ability to contest their waiver of COI
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:41 p.m.
@cabot If you could resolve this so we can move on
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
???
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
This is not about that
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
its a conflict with us
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
have you even read the bar rules?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
Even if there’s a conflict… there’s no interest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
What’s my interest? Beating you?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
I’d hope so
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:42 p.m.
That’s what every defense attorney aspires to do. Beat the Plaintiff
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:44 p.m.
The bar rule states that your not allowed to take a case against us after being approached in this matter unless both partys give informed consent
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:45 p.m.
"An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d)."
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:45 p.m.
(d) "When the attorney has received information that prohibits representation as provided in paragraph (c), representation of the affected client is permissible if: (1) both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, or"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:45 p.m.
You can continue to restate what we already know from reading the rules or consult the disqualification standard of defense attorneys
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.
Please go make a bar complaint
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.
Nobody has time for your weird fantasies and speculation
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.
lets leave this for the judge to decide
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:46 p.m.
or actualy
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:47 p.m.
@cabot I request a hearing on this matter
bob78711newbob78711new
The bar rule states that your not allowed to take a case against us after being approached in this matter unless both partys give informed consent
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.
What confidential information did I acquire
meowiittenmeowiitten
What confidential information did I acquire
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.
its in the afidavits
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.
You can disclose them
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.
Why?
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:55 p.m.
Its Trial Strat
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 07:56 p.m.
I am not going to tell the rest of the attorney pool
bob78711newbob78711new
Its Trial Strat
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
Uh
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
Whatever is in those affidavits aren’t evidence for trial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
That’s not relevant to the due process claim(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
They’re relevant to me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
And only me
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
yeah
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
because its on the
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:02 p.m.
motion to dq u
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:12 p.m.
Please, by all means
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.
also
meowiittenmeowiitten
Please, by all means
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.
got a
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.
explenation for this?
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.
Stop talking to each other
cabot
cabot 2025-08-05 08:26 p.m.
File motions or talk to me
cabotcabot
File motions or talk to me
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:27 p.m.
Your honor I requested a hearing
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:28 p.m.
can we set a date and time for that?
bob78711newbob78711new
Click to see attachment.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-05 08:28 p.m.
He’s not sued in his individual capacity. The state represents him
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:29 p.m.
fair
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-05 08:35 p.m.
@cabot can we schedule on my requested hearing?
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 09:23 p.m.
your honour, the state contests to wasting the court's time with a hearing regarding a matter that could be articulated in a written motion. @cabot
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 09:26 p.m.
even so- considering bob's being disqualified in these proceedings, the court should not entertain his request for hearing on a verbal motion to disqualify the state's counsel, whereby the court ought to remind bob that he would need acquire new counsel to represent the rest of the plaintiff's interests as opposed to attempting to do so himself without the leave of the court.
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-05 09:29 p.m.
at the very least, the state would like your honour's indication on whether or not you're hearing his (verbal) motion or even so much as allowing him to represent plaintiff in these proceedings so that the state can act accordingly, as bob continues to make rather grievous accusations and attempts admit evidence into record to levy against the state's counsel very serious accusations of misconduct and impropriety.
DeverusDeverus
even so- considering bob's being disqualified in these proceedings, the court should not entertain his request for hearing on a verbal motion to disqualify the state's counsel, whe...
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:37 a.m.
As I provided the bar rules state that I may represent them with their consent
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:37 a.m.
I have met that requirement
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 06:57 a.m.
the state would like to remind your honour that this court, after bob withdrew as counsel of record, was disqualified as counsel of record for the plaintiffs.

(though he withdrew and now apparently popped back in without filing NOA which is, in and of itself, a bit of a problem innit.)

we ask that the court make clear to bob that he’s not permitted to act as such and consider sanctions if necessary.

@cabot
DeverusDeverus
the state would like to remind your honour that this court, after bob withdrew as counsel of record, was disqualified as counsel of record for the plaintiffs. (though he withd...
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 01:53 p.m.
I did not withdraw
ianian
Bob has withdrawn his representation of himself and others
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 02:30 p.m.
then what is this @bob78711new
DeverusDeverus
then what is this @bob78711new
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 02:37 p.m.
that was npz
DeverusDeverus
then what is this @bob78711new
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 02:37 p.m.
I think he ment I withdrew to co counsel
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 02:37 p.m.
as was my plan
cabotcabot
Okay sure he’s disqualified
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 02:58 p.m.
@bob78711new
bob78711newbob78711new
I think he ment I withdrew to co counsel
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 03:01 p.m.
the verbiage that npz used was very clear. “withdrawn representation of himself and others.

the matter, however, is moot as you were disqualified from these proceedings.

@cabot we ask that the court hold Mr.bob to the 24hr deadline to find new counsel in this case.
meowiittenmeowiitten
@bob78711new
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:02 p.m.
I appealed this disqualification
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:02 p.m.
I am awaiting ruling
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:02 p.m.
this disqualification was not in light with the district courts rules as I was not able to give a reply
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-06 03:18 p.m.
you.. appealed? do you even know how to do that
bob78711newbob78711new
I appealed this disqualification
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 03:27 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 03:27 p.m.
Trying to get chick fil a
actxrzactxrz
you.. appealed? do you even know how to do that
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:32 p.m.
Well I motioned to reconsider
meowiittenmeowiitten
Click to see attachment.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 03:32 p.m.
the bar rules say I can
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 03:33 p.m.
:🤯::🤯::🤯:
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 04:00 p.m.
@cabot can we have a hearing on the motion to reconsider
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 05:19 p.m.
once again, defendant contests the wasting of the court's time with hearings when plaintiff could articulate their legal arguments via a written motion @cabot
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 05:21 p.m.
i would also like to make it apparent that plaintiff is approaching the court's deadline for them to find new counsel. we're under 2 hours out.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:30 p.m.
Sigh
bob78711newbob78711new
@cabot can we have a hearing on the motion to reconsider
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.
It will make no difference to my judgment so we will not do that
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.
Right
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.
I’m not reading up
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.
Everyone can summarise their positions and what was said in two sentences
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:31 p.m.
If counsel speak to each other instead of addressing the court from hereinafter you’re getting contempt
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:32 p.m.
Hope everyone understands, bless!
cabotcabot
Everyone can summarise their positions and what was said in two sentences
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:33 p.m.
My position is very clear your honor, under bar rule 3.7 I am permitted to represent myself pro se and the rest of the plaintiffs if I have their informed consent which I do.
cabotcabot
Hope everyone understands, bless!
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:33 p.m.
We thank you for your understanding.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:33 p.m.
or I should say leniency
bob78711newbob78711new
My position is very clear your honor, under bar rule 3.7 I am permitted to represent myself pro se and the rest of the plaintiffs if I have their informed consent which I do.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:34 p.m.
So you want to represent them
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:34 p.m.
And yourself
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:34 p.m.
So asking for vacatur of the disqualification order
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
Yes your honor.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
On second thought I’m inclined to agree, I vacate my previous order regarding disqualification
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
This sort of nitpicking is really beneath the dignity of the court
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
You shall proceed as counsel for the plaintiffs
cabotcabot
On second thought I’m inclined to agree, I vacate my previous order regarding disqualification
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
May I present my case on the disqualification of opposing counsel?
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
Just make that clear in the documents
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
Its against bar rules by very definition
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
Regarding who
cabotcabot
Just make that clear in the documents
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
Will do
cabotcabot
Regarding who
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:35 p.m.
Sado
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
Oh okay sure, but find some precedent to support you
cabotcabot
Oh okay sure, but find some precedent to support you
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
The bar rule supports me directly
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
Rule 1.15 Duties to Prospective Client

(a) "A person who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults an attorney for the purpose of retaining the attorney or securing legal service or advice from the attorney in the attorney’s professional capacity, is a prospective client." - Prospective Client Defined

(b) "Even when no attorney-client relationship ensues, an attorney who has communicated with a prospective client shall not use or reveal protected information that the attorney learned as a result of the consultation, except as rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client." - He has information

(c) "An attorney subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received from the prospective and protected client information, except as provided in paragraph (d). If an attorney is prohibited from representation under this paragraph, no attorney in a firm with which that attorney is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d)." - It is the same exact case

(d) "When the attorney has received information that prohibits representation as provided in paragraph (c), representation of the affected client is permissible if:"


(1) "both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, or"
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
Sado was engaging the plantiffs as prospective clients
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
and was given information on the
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
case
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
as my affidavits state
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:36 p.m.
which I will repost
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:37 p.m.
Under section d he is prohibited from representing the opposing counsel if he does not meet one of two criteria
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.
he fails criteria d(1)
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.
he may have the consent of the government
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.
but we did not consent
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.
as required the bar rules
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:38 p.m.
I hope I explained this well
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 05:48 p.m.
right then.

allow me to be frank, your honour: the only evidence, barring these affidavits, that plaintiff has presented which would indicate sado came into possession of any so-called "confidential" information is a screenshot of sado declining to represent them, nothing more. on the record, sado has indicated that he was told nothing beyond the fact that they were bringing action against defendants. the simple knowledge that plaintiffs are filing action is far from what one would reasonably consider protected information. while plaintiff contends that he has came into possession of protected information, the only thing to back this is their sworn statement, whereby sado has contradicted that claim with his own sworn statement on the record.

at this rate all we have is a game of he-said-she-said, and one party is either perjuring themselves or mischaracterizing the situation, but until plaintiff can produce more evidence to support their claims, we'll never know. at this rate, what you'd be ruling on is conjecture, which the state contends is far below the threshold required to disqualify counsel in this event, as courts before this have determined that "disqualification is not warranted absent proof of a reasonable probability that counsel actually acquired privileged, confidential information" Brown v Dist. Ct. 14 P.3d 1266 (2000) (emphasis added)

plaintiff has far from established reasonable probability that sado actually acquired any such information, your honour. any motion to disqualify him based on the evidence present here must be denied.
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 05:49 p.m.
@cabot
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 05:56 p.m.
Your honor,

Brown v. District Court, 14 P.3d 1266 (2000) establishes whether there is a reasonable probability that the attorney received privileged or confidential information, not whether the attorney formally agreed to represent the party.

Plaintiffs have submitted sworn affidavits attesting that Sado was approached for representation, and during those discussions, plaintiffs shared specific evidence, trial strategy, and the theory of the case. That exceeds the threshold of mere notice of intent to file a suit. Those communications were plainly confidential in nature, and Sado’s receipt of them, even if he ultimately declined representation, creates a clear conflict.

In Coles v. Marsh, 560 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1977), the court emphasized that even preliminary discussions in contemplation of representation trigger the duty of confidentiality.

also under Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 580 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1978), a lawyer who gains confidential information during a prospective consultation cannot later appear adverse to that party, even if they decline the representation.

they are trying to turn this down into a "he said she said"

You already said yourself that biased on the apparent facts the government may have already committed misconduct and they have even been dodging around the question of weather their consent was given before the initial proceedings.
cabotcabot
On second thought I’m inclined to agree, I vacate my previous order regarding disqualification
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:26 p.m.
I should let you know that there is an emergency application for a stay of this case being presented to SCOM
meowiittenmeowiitten
I should let you know that there is an emergency application for a stay of this case being presented to SCOM
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 06:35 p.m.
Oh I see
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 06:35 p.m.
I assume by DOJ?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:35 p.m.
Yep
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:36 p.m.
I was thinking of mentioning this at the TRO hearing but the fucking name of the case eluded me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:36 p.m.
Purcell
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:36 p.m.
Court not supposed to enjoin state election officials on the eve of an election
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:37 p.m.
Here it is
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:37 p.m.
Presented to applications justice
cabotcabot
You shall proceed as counsel for the plaintiffs
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:42 p.m.
Ridiculous
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:42 p.m.
It’s ok
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:42 p.m.
Anyways this case was kind of boofed from the start
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:43 p.m.
That’s why I’m going to SCOM
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:43 p.m.
It’s unfortunate but this happens more often than not(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:43 p.m.
And law is nit-picky I feel a little insulted that it was called beneath the dignity of this court
😭1
meowiittenmeowiitten
It’s unfortunate but this happens more often than not(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:44 p.m.
For example prisoner civil rights cases are dismissed so much that the case law says to treat them with skepticism lol
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:44 p.m.
As opposed to normal complaints which are construed liberally
bob78711newbob78711new
Click to see attachment.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:50 p.m.
@cabot Honestly I’d file a motion for sanctions based on them making up the fact that they somehow gave me confidential information by telling me they planned to sue the MEC but I’ll leave this up to you. We can all move past this and have a productive case that isn’t based on conspiracy theories
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:51 p.m.
So that’s the last I’ll say about that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:52 p.m.
Needless to say I was never entitled to represent them and they reached out to me to represent me. As I am a private citizen I had no obligation to tend to their needs. I never accepted their case and as much was clear. And they should know that I only offer consultations in my server (I have an entire ticket system). I’m not some priest bound by a permanent confessional seal
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 06:54 p.m.
I agree
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.
What's SC original jurisdiction in Const
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.
Does anyone have that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.
Same as US Supreme Court I’m pretty sure
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.
They just borrowed article 3
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.
It might be broader
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 06:55 p.m.
Oh I see, pretty wide then
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 06:56 p.m.
Hm cases of significant national importance should be brought directly to SC.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:02 p.m.
Your honor, @cabot, bar rules state that he need not accept representation, but if he was given information in the discussions which we did over VC then he is barred from representing the defence
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:03 p.m.
the DOJ has many lawyers who can represent the government
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.
Unless you're telling me he received privileged information I'm not going to remove him
Deverus
Deverus 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.
your honour, as we've addressed now multiple times, plaintiff is simply claiming that. they submitted a sworn statement, sado has stated on record that he didn't receive any privileged information, and vice versa.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.
I don't need anymore representations from DOJ everytime the other party speaks
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.
It's getting annoying now
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.
You speak when I ask thank you
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 07:05 p.m.
My chat is clogged up for that very reason
cabot
cabot 2025-08-06 07:06 p.m.
The same applies vice versa for the record
cabotcabot
Unless you're telling me he received privileged information I'm not going to remove him
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:29 p.m.
He did
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:31 p.m.
Trial strategy and a description of evidence is privileged
cabotcabot
The same applies vice versa for the record
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 07:32 p.m.
Understood
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 08:34 p.m.
Duckman13528, et al. v. Columbia First, et al.

---

Filing Attorney:

Filer: Name
SC Bar Membership: No. No
Discord: Name#
Filed on behalf of Appellant

Time Filed: MM/DD/2023

Docket

Aug. 6 2025: Emergency application for stay filed by sadoimpacto.
Aug. 6 2025: Associate Justice krabzatonin recuses from the case.
**Aug. 6...
Labels
Discretionary Review
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:26 p.m.
@cabot

Following the guidance of the Supreme Court, this case should be severed, and no PI should be entertained as to the other plaintiffs:

"At minimum, the proper course would be to sever the plaintiffs, and grant relief to the individual filer, while maintaining the status quo in order to afford the others a chance to be heard."

Duckman, et al., v. Columbia First, et al., No. 02-27 (Turntable, J., denying application for stay)
(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:26 p.m.
Although this denial is pretty contradicatory and I'm not sure what the message is
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:32 p.m.
What is clear is that the expectation is that this case be severed
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:37 p.m.
Your honor, at this time I see no point in overturning your ruling on my representation based on outside caselaw that expressly conflicts with the bar's ethical guidelines.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:39 p.m.
and with the exigent circumstances of the court present at the moment, which the chief judge himself discussed in his press conference, referring to the lack of attorneys of course, I believe it would be against the interests of the public in this matter to dismiss me once again.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:42 p.m.
Motion to hold opposing counsel in contempt
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 10:43 p.m.
For address myself instead of the honorable court
meowiittenmeowiitten
@cabot Following the guidance of the Supreme Court, this case should be severed, and no PI should be entertained as to the other plaintiffs: "At minimum, the p...(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-06 10:55 p.m.
Motion Schedule: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1402020908427645038/1402410161645031535

So the way that this should be severed: (1) bob78711new remains the sole plaintiff in the current action (CV-375-25); (2) all other individual plaintiffs (WooleyMcNoble, DanielCrusoe, aegeangazi, s_edative) should be severed into individual pro se actions (pending counsel) or dismissed for want of jurisdiction/prosecution; and (3) Columbia First Party must be treated as improperly before the court, since it cannot represent itself pro se (Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990)).

The TRO should be vacated and narrowed to apply only to bob78711new until jurisdiction is properly reestablished over the severed plaintiffs. The preliminary injunction hearing should be postponed until these issues are resolved.

I can write up a proposed order and/or a motion to sever, but I don't think it's necessary since this is a command from above, and you should be able to do it sua sponte.

"[T]he pro se litigant is unable to formally represent the remaining candidates[.]" duckman13528, et al. v. Columbia First Party, et al., No. 02-27, slip op. at 2 (Mayflower Sup. Ct. Aug. 6, 2025).

@cabot
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-06 11:02 p.m.
May we have a ruling on the disqualification before this matter
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-07 12:33 a.m.
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-07 12:33 a.m.
op
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-07 12:33 a.m.
wrong channel
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-07 12:33 a.m.
my apologies your honor
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.
Great
krm
krm 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.
Vice Lord Chancellor is here
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.
Good girl
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.
Anyway
krm
krm 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.
?
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.
Quiet Vice Chancellor.
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 06:36 a.m.
Good.
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 06:37 a.m.
All other plaintiffs except bobby are severed from the complaint and their interests are dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. I will accept a refiling on their behalf if you wish to represent them. An amended complaint will suffice
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 06:38 a.m.
@bob78711new
meowiittenmeowiitten
DEFENDANTS' MOTION SCHEDULE 1. [Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hffz8h-M5d3lXiQ3MqxCCWavnJx7zT-p/view?usp=sharing) 2. [Government's ...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 12:28 p.m.
@cabot For that matter, the only things left for review now are the 3 motions
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 12:32 p.m.
2 MTDs and 1 motion to intervene
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 12:32 p.m.
It’s been over 48 hours and the defendant didn’t file a response so
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:17 p.m.
Actually the MTI is moot now
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:18 p.m.
So is the 2nd MTD
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:18 p.m.
The first MTD is the only item to review
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:23 p.m.
Actually
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:24 p.m.
@cabot This entire case is moot since he can’t personally litigate their license suspension, which is the only issue remaining
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:24 p.m.
He got his election relief already. Anything final judgment relief that would be pointless since he got what he wanted
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:26 p.m.
What he has to do is refile a separate complaint based solely on the license suspension in the name of CF
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:26 p.m.
But by the time that case is adjudicated it will also indeed be moot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:26 p.m.
Since the suspension expires on the 17th
meowiittenmeowiitten
Since the suspension expires on the 17th
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-07 01:40 p.m.
They revoked the license
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:41 p.m.
Oh. Well it looks like they just revoked it yesterday
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:42 p.m.
Either way, you can't litigate that pro se. Need to file a seperate case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:42 p.m.
With you as their attorney
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 01:42 p.m.
CF's attorney
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 05:33 p.m.
@cabot I move to dismiss this case without prejudice since Bob can't litigate CF's license revocation on his own accord since that injury does not belong to him
cabot
cabot 2025-08-07 07:44 p.m.
Okay do you want to refile @bob78711new(edited)
cabotcabot
Okay do you want to refile @bob78711new(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-07 07:44 p.m.
The case title would change entirely from whatever it is now to Columbia First v. DOS and whatever other official
cabotcabot
Okay do you want to refile @bob78711new(edited)
bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-07 07:46 p.m.
we will refile, but before we adjourn I'd like to hold opposing counsel in contempt, since you did not rule on my motion prior, and for the court to refer him to the bar for his ethical violations in this case.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 04:17 p.m.
@cabot
cabot
cabot 2025-08-09 05:31 p.m.
Hi
cabot
cabot 2025-08-09 05:31 p.m.
What needs doing here
cabot
cabot 2025-08-09 05:31 p.m.
I’m not holding him in contempt
cabot
cabot 2025-08-09 05:31 p.m.
File a complaint with the bar if you wish
cabotcabot
What needs doing here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.
Dismissal since he can't litigate the CF's injury
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.
By himself
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.
Like that's the only issue that's still live
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.
The revocation of their license
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.
He would need to file an entirely different case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 06:14 p.m.
He's also now district attorney
cabot
cabot 2025-08-09 07:16 p.m.
Alright case dismissed without prejudice and you can refile with necessary challenges and changes when ready @bob78711new
cabot
cabot 2025-08-09 07:16 p.m.
@meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 07:16 p.m.
Ok
cabot
cabot 2025-08-13 07:21 p.m.
[Needs TRO authored](edited)
krm
krm 2025-09-12 09:46 a.m.
@cabot can i archive
cabot
cabot 2025-09-12 10:07 a.m.
yes
krmkrm used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:14 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:14 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume XI.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:14 a.m.
Exported 822 messages